mrshowrules:randomjsa: blastoh: So, you are.... 5? maybe 6? What is it with conservatives that everytime they are called out for doing something stupid, instead of trying to rationally explain their actions, they instead reply with "something something something liberals something?"

Do you just have no explaination for you actions or beleif systems? Is everything you do and beleive based off of liberals?A clarification would be great here.

I observed how liberals behaved, the things they said, and the sort of images they liked to invoke while Bush was in office. I continue to watch how they behave even today. This is precisely the sort of thing liberals have engaged in since they lost in 2000 and it hasn't slowed down even slightly since then. As I said when Obama was inaugurated, I want every liberal to look back at how they've behaved over the last 8 years and think long and hard about it... Because that was the level we sunk to, and now you can expect no better from your opponents.

Of course, we've listened to the screeching about racism, or various other stupid things because admitting that Republicans dislike Obama for political reasons would mean having to admit that all that vitriol spewed by liberals while Bush was in office was also for political reasons. No more, no less. That's all it's ever been and ever will be about.

If this sort of thing bothers you, and it should, then liberals can start by cleaning themselves up because... You're the ones that brought us down here.

So as long as you can point to some remotely comparable precedent from Liberals, Conservative actions are justified. Got it.

Its not even that. Its "we're doing it becaue of liberals."

I am in Seattle, and I have hard countless conservatives say they are boycotting Amazon (CEO Jeff Bezo's 2.5 million dollar donations to the Marriage Equality cause) because liberals are boycotting Chic-fil-a.

blastoh:So this is supposed to be a statement about how there is no outrage about Obama's killing of Terrorists?So is he comparing Obama to the Colorado Shooter?OrIs he comparing the vicitims in Colorado to terrorists?

Can we get a clarification on which farking retarded analogy he is attempting to draw here?

No, because that's the brilliance of it. It's not just "farking retarded," it's "farking retarded even as retardation goes." It's "farking META-retarded." That there is quite an achievement.

blastoh:I am in Seattle, and I have hard countless conservatives say they are boycotting Amazon (CEO Jeff Bezo's 2.5 million dollar donations to the Marriage Equality cause) because liberals are boycotting Chic-fil-a.

Why don't they do something useful, like boycott Starbucks instead of Amazon?

StoneColdAtheist:blastoh: I am in Seattle, and I have hard countless conservatives say they are boycotting Amazon (CEO Jeff Bezo's 2.5 million dollar donations to the Marriage Equality cause) because liberals are boycotting Chic-fil-a.

Why don't they do something useful, like boycott Starbucks instead of Amazon?

/shiatty coffee is shiatty

I'm surprised Seattle hasn't boycotted Starbucks yet after their role in the Sonics leaving Seattle.

RyogaM:Obama's foreign policy has resulted in many deaths, yes. Some were even civilians. And many were American soldiers.

So, what to do? Vote him out and give the Big Chair to Romney?

You know, it's not always about the election. Just because there is no better alternative does not mean that the problem should not be spoken of.

I trust President Obama with the powers of drone execution much more than I would trust President Romney, but that does not stop me from wanting a check on the powers of execution, which will not happen if we don't bring it up.

StoneColdAtheist:blastoh: I am in Seattle, and I have hard countless conservatives say they are boycotting Amazon (CEO Jeff Bezo's 2.5 million dollar donations to the Marriage Equality cause) because liberals are boycotting Chic-fil-a.

Why don't they do something useful, like boycott Starbucks instead of Amazon?

/shiatty coffee is shiatty

I prefere that the christian right not go through withdrawls while getting worked up over silly little things. Most of them do have guns you know.

KnightWhoFormerlySaidNi:shotglasss: LordJiro: shotglasss: Hobodeluxe: if this guy hadn't been able to get these guns because he was mental or if he hadn't been able to purchase gas grenades and 100 round clips for his assault rifle things might have turned out different. thanks NRA for making sure a thorough background check with a psych evaluation and proper waiting period isn't required. and that anyone with a credit card can get damn near anything they want ,as much as they want.

You forgot to thank the theater that disarmed everyone at the door, making everyone in there a target for a nutcase.

If someone HAD fired back, it would've been ineffective at best, unless they just HAPPENED to bring a gun loaded with rounds that could pierce body armor. That's if they could even hit the guy in the dark, tear-gas filled theater. At worst (And most likely), a crossfire would have caused even more casualties.

In short, real life isn't an action movie, dipshiat. Even in a movie theater.

Thanks for proving your ignorance/fear of guns, dipshiat. As soon as this guy realized he was being shot at, he would have rabbited out the door, because he obviously was NOT on a suicide mission. And being hit by a bullet through body armor is like being hit with a large hammer. It will knock the crap out of you. It's not like a movie where a little piece of fabric pops off but the shooter just keeps on walking.

Good to see a member of the 121st Fighting Keyboardists chiming in.

Didn't do very well in physics class, did you? The force of impact has to be equal to the kick of the firearm. That's how the real world works. Are you actually suggesting that firing a handgun is like being hit with a large hammer? If not, where, pray tell, did the extra force come from?

You're not only ignorant, you're a mind reader too. You know exactly what the shooter would have done. Brilliant! Got any stock tips for me?

Ever see the video of the LA bank shooting? Those gunmen in full body armor sure were running aw ...

First, given the circumstances I'm not sure if a CCW holder would have made a difference or not. Second, there are conflicting reports about whether or not he was wearing body armor or just a tac vest. Finally, in the north Hollywood shoot out did no one in the area have a rifle they could have given the police? You could blindly reach into my safe and randomly pull out a rifle that would have drilled through that armor like it wasn't even there.

Mrtraveler01:I'm surprised Seattle hasn't boycotted Starbucks yet after their role in the Sonics leaving Seattle

The Sonics were a mainstream sport.Seattle is too cool for that. Everything has to be different."Special coffee"Macs and Iphones, not Pcs or DroidsSandals, not shoesBicycles, not cars. and they have a car, it has to be a SubaruAnd Soccer, not Basketball.

It is funny watching them all act the same in an effort to be different. It is like going through highschool all over again, except these are farking 40 year olds.

shotglasss:Hobodeluxe: shotglasss: Hobodeluxe: if this guy hadn't been able to get these guns because he was mental or if he hadn't been able to purchase gas grenades and 100 round clips for his assault rifle things might have turned out different. thanks NRA for making sure a thorough background check with a psych evaluation and proper waiting period isn't required. and that anyone with a credit card can get damn near anything they want ,as much as they want.

You forgot to thank the theater that disarmed everyone at the door, making everyone in there a target for a nutcase.

yeah because what you want in a dark theater full of teargas and panicked people running around is untrained people shooting at muzzle flashes.

Wrong. What I would have wanted in that situation was someone to shoot the bad guy.

I want conservatives to have honesty and integrity. Both are great fantasies but reality is way different.

Fail in Human Form:KnightWhoFormerlySaidNi: shotglasss: LordJiro: shotglasss: Hobodeluxe: ifIf someone HAD fired back, it would've been ineffective at best, unless they just HAPPENED to bring a gun loaded with rounds that could pierce body armor. That's if they could even hit the guy in the dark, tear-gas filled theater. At worst (And most likely), a crossfire would have caused even more casualties.

Or worse yet.Guy (a) gets up and shoots the gunman dead. another guy then looks up, sees Guy (a) with a gun and shoots him, thinking theat he is the gunman.

Don't snipe at me, it's how the WH is calculating the body count these days. Citation

It's obvious that you have an issue with using drone strikes in a war.

Out of curiosity, what would you say is necessary for such a policy to be removed, or more tightly controlled?

I find it strange that Obama was so against water boarding captured terrorists, but has no problem turning them into grease stains on the side of some dusty hill. I might add that information we gleaned from those water boarding sessions was key to finding Bin Laden. Something I guess he should have blamed on Bush.

Personally, I rather see more effort go into capturing these idiots and go back to dumping water on their heads and see what Intel we can get.

Okay, let's think for a second, shall we?

The terrorists are in Pakistan, or some other country, not always Afghanistan. You want us to go into Pakistan with troops, to capture the terrorists, not kill them with drones, and water board them, to get more information about terrorists.

Now, do you understand, no one, not Bush, not McCain and not Romney have ever said they would send troops into Pakistan or any other country to get terrorists? In fact, all three criticized Obama for saying he would send troops into Pakistan to get Osama, all three characterized it as invading an ally. Under Bush, we had a chance to do just what you are suggesting with Al Zawahri, the number 2 man in AQ, and the Bush administration refused to do it. Only Obama has suggested and actually implemented sending troops into another country to get terror suspects, in bagged Osama as a result. Would have been nice to get him alive, but we did get his computers, so there is that.

Now, Romney, has gone on record supporting the drone strikes, even against U.S. citizens. He supported the Osama operation only after we got him. He has not pledged to do what you said, go after the terrorists and waterboard them if they are found in other countries. Your position is not supported by any candidate running for office, and was not supported by the Bush administration, the last administration in office, and the administration that will be supplying the majority of military and foreign affairs advisers to a Romney administration. Also, the Bush administration quickly abandoned water-boarding, so don't think it will be coming back any time soon.

Bottom-line, you want an administration that offers the best chance of catching terror suspects alive, even if they are in other countries, then Obama is the clear choice.

blastoh:Fail in Human Form: KnightWhoFormerlySaidNi: shotglasss: LordJiro: shotglasss: Hobodeluxe: ifIf someone HAD fired back, it would've been ineffective at best, unless they just HAPPENED to bring a gun loaded with rounds that could pierce body armor. That's if they could even hit the guy in the dark, tear-gas filled theater. At worst (And most likely), a crossfire would have caused even more casualties.

Or worse yet.Guy (a) gets up and shoots the gunman dead. another guy then looks up, sees Guy (a) with a gun and shoots him, thinking theat he is the gunman.

I find it strange that Obama was so against water boarding captured terrorists, but has no problem turning them into grease stains on the side of some dusty hill. I might add that information we gleaned from those water boarding sessions was key to finding Bin Laden. Something I guess he should have blamed on Bush.

Personally, I rather see more effort go into capturing these idiots and go back to dumping water on their heads and see what Intel we can get.

Actually water boarding is not an effective way of getting truthful information out of terrorists.

All of the useful information we got out of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed we got by good old fashioned trickery. When the CIA took over and started waterboarding him, he stopped giving us information, even though they waterboarded him 183 times.

So, I want to understand the logic of someone who says, "Well, we waterboarded him 182 times, and he didn't give us the information we wanted. But maybe if we keep trying . . . "

Brick-House:Mrtraveler01: Brick-House: Mrtraveler01: Brick-House: I might add that information we gleaned from those water boarding sessions was key to finding Bin Laden

Still pushing that lie I see.

You drink that kool aid right from Obama's left teat, don't you?

So you got nothing then huh?

How boring.

I've learned long ago never to argue with idiots, because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

That's a cute way to say "I cannot refute your point".

Again, you got nothin'. Go do your homework and come back with FACTS, not fabrications.

One last thing while you're on mom's computer: If you can't see the difference between combatants being killed in a strategic military strike, and suspects being tortured, you don't even know what it is to be an American. You've missed the point.

We're supposed to take the high road. If we don't, then there is no difference between us and them, and the terrorists win. Do you understand that? Not torturing people makes you more American. Not less.

Biological Ali:blastoh: Fail in Human Form: KnightWhoFormerlySaidNi: shotglasss: LordJiro: shotglasss: Hobodeluxe: ifIf someone HAD fired back, it would've been ineffective at best, unless they just HAPPENED to bring a gun loaded with rounds that could pierce body armor. That's if they could even hit the guy in the dark, tear-gas filled theater. At worst (And most likely), a crossfire would have caused even more casualties.

Or worse yet.Guy (a) gets up and shoots the gunman dead. another guy then looks up, sees Guy (a) with a gun and shoots him, thinking theat he is the gunman.

Prcoess repeats.

[dilbert.com image 640x199]

But ultimately, everybody (who survives) is safe, right?

Well again, given the chaos and tear gas I'm not sure if a CCW holder would have been able to make a difference or not but let's say you're a CCW holder and are close enough to take a reasonably safe shot at the shooter. Do you feel it would be worth the personal risk of being misidentified as the shooter to try and take down the shooter? Although I have a feeling if there were multiple CCW holders there, and they were allowed to carry there, that they'd be less likely to think you're the threat given that you're dressed in normal clothes and you're shooting at the guy wearing tac gear at the opposite side of the theater. This is all monday morning quarterbacking though.

"This billboard is offensive to all those lives lost and affected by the shooting,"

Exactly. Using this for their little political maneuvering is totally over the line. If they were talking about Obama's response to the shooting, or how his actions somehow led t it, that would be one thing, but this is nothing but latching on to a tragedy to use it for nothing more than this is a joke, and I am losing more respect for the Republicans day by day.

This is making it extremely hard to be an Independent, BTW....

God, I love living in Utah, and would like to live in Idaho( I lived there while I was a kid, and it was beautiful), but when you have pricks like this making the news in a state that small, it's easy for everyone to get labeled with the same brush...

RyogaM:MyRandomName: Asa Phelps: So which foreign policy are they referring to?

Drone strikes probably. Judge, Jury, Executor.

It was fun watching the Republican debate on foreign relations after reading all the Fark threads on the death of al Awalki, in which Fark independents tried to make the al Alwaki assassination into Obama's "New Unconstitutional Power Grab!" Both Romney and Gingrich fully supported the strike, you see, guaranteeing that Obama's use of drone strikes will never be mentioned again by the campaign. Must be tough, being a Fark independent, seeing all your outrage expended on actions that will have no affect on the presidency.

I stated nothing about the reactions of conservatives of the policies of Romney. But I can link you to many groups who were loud about drone strikes prior to O taking office. I'm personally against targeted strikes outside of actual war, and I'll remain consistent on that no matter who the president is. Nice strawman argument you've made up for yourself, however.

MyRandomName:RyogaM: MyRandomName: Asa Phelps: So which foreign policy are they referring to?

Drone strikes probably. Judge, Jury, Executor.

It was fun watching the Republican debate on foreign relations after reading all the Fark threads on the death of al Awalki, in which Fark independents tried to make the al Alwaki assassination into Obama's "New Unconstitutional Power Grab!" Both Romney and Gingrich fully supported the strike, you see, guaranteeing that Obama's use of drone strikes will never be mentioned again by the campaign. Must be tough, being a Fark independent, seeing all your outrage expended on actions that will have no affect on the presidency.

I stated nothing about the reactions of conservatives of the policies of Romney. But I can link you to many groups who were loud about drone strikes prior to O taking office. I'm personally against targeted strikes outside of actual war, and I'll remain consistent on that no matter who the president is. Nice strawman argument you've made up for yourself, however.

Where have all the anti-war protestors gone anyways?

I was not calling you a Fark independent, although rereading my post, I can see where you might think I was saying you were. I was speaking in generalities. Clearly, given your position, you are a true independent and won't be voting for Romney because he has pledged to continue drone strikes. I commend you for your consistency. It is the Fark independents who tried to make an issue of the strikes prior to Romney making his support known that I found most amusing and was trying to share my amusement.

As far as the anti-war protesters, I cannot speak for them. I supported the war in Afghanistan when it began and until Bush farked it up, and supported the war in Iraq until it became clear that there were no WMDs and the Bush administration farked it up. I assume they are happy that the war in Iraq is over and most were never strongly against Afghanistan anyway, AFAICT.

The billboard says thousands of people. We've killed and maimed maybe a few hundred that way.

From where i sit, the drone strikes are both more effective and cause less collateral damage than some of the other options we have out there.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16297-Drone-strikes-kill-14- i n-NWA

Yes, 14 die, "some are suspected terrorists." Drone Strikes are not being used correctly, again, it's judge, jury, executioner. It should never be used on merely SUSPECTED terrorists, leaders maybe, but even then is iffy due to the collateral damage of killing family when they use it on buildings.

MyRandomName:http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16297-Drone-strikes-kill-14- i n-NWA

Yes, 14 die, "some are suspected terrorists." Drone Strikes are not being used correctly, again, it's judge, jury, executioner. It should never be used on merely SUSPECTED terrorists, leaders maybe, but even then is iffy due to the collateral damage of killing family when they use it on buildings.

Again, the billboard says thousands. The drone strikes don't add up to that much.

Aside from that, you've linked to a site in pakistan that is guaranteed to give the story an anti-drone-strike slant. They don't know or care whether those targets are legitimate.

The billboard says thousands of people. We've killed and maimed maybe a few hundred that way.

From where i sit, the drone strikes are both more effective and cause less collateral damage than some of the other options we have out there.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16297-Drone-strikes-kill-14- i n-NWA

Yes, 14 die, "some are suspected terrorists." Drone Strikes are not being used correctly, again, it's judge, jury, executioner. It should never be used on merely SUSPECTED terrorists, leaders maybe, but even then is iffy due to the collateral damage of killing family when they use it on buildings.

At least we know that you were against this when Bush did it and would be against it if Romney does it correct?

I know reading is hard, but the level of outcry from the anti-war and anti-drone groups have decreased since O took office. Sorry you are too farking retarded to notice this. So how about you take your own stupid advice.

bugontherug:MyRandomName: But I can link you to many groups who were loud about drone strikes prior to O taking office.

So link some. Difficulty: if the group is found to have opposed drone strikes post O taking office, you must admit that you are without value as a human being, and then shoot yourself in the head.

Deal?

It has now been more than 15 minutes since I invited you to post links to groups which opposed drone strikes before Obama took office, and no longer opposed them after Obama took office. Not only that, you have since made at least one post. The inference is strong that you can find no such groups.

Since you declined my invitation, you need not shoot yourself in the head. However, it is now established fact of reality that you are without value as a human being. Moreover, this means Obama automatically wins re-election, and all cons can get down on their knees and suck it.

The billboard says thousands of people. We've killed and maimed maybe a few hundred that way.

From where i sit, the drone strikes are both more effective and cause less collateral damage than some of the other options we have out there.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16297-Drone-strikes-kill-14- i n-NWA

Yes, 14 die, "some are suspected terrorists." Drone Strikes are not being used correctly, again, it's judge, jury, executioner. It should never be used on merely SUSPECTED terrorists, leaders maybe, but even then is iffy due to the collateral damage of killing family when they use it on buildings.

At least we know that you were against this when Bush did it and would be against it if Romney does it correct?

Given his impassioned opposition to the use of drones, I have to assume he will not be voting for Romney, and would still be opposition if Romney did win.

Oh, good, the right wing is now on board with stopping the excursionary wars and withdrawing from foreign battlefields!

Wait, what? These same cocks are beating the drum for war with Iran?

Well, shiat.

(Also, you "minarchist" "libertarians" have no business talking about statism when you are, in fact, statists who are interested in having the most oppressive and least responsible government possible).

randomjsa:blastoh: So, you are.... 5? maybe 6? What is it with conservatives that everytime they are called out for doing something stupid, instead of trying to rationally explain their actions, they instead reply with "something something something liberals something?"

Do you just have no explaination for you actions or beleif systems? Is everything you do and beleive based off of liberals?A clarification would be great here.

I observed how liberals behaved, the things they said, and the sort of images they liked to invoke while Bush was in office. I continue to watch how they behave even today. This is precisely the sort of thing liberals have engaged in since they lost in 2000 and it hasn't slowed down even slightly since then. As I said when Obama was inaugurated, I want every liberal to look back at how they've behaved over the last 8 years and think long and hard about it... Because that was the level we sunk to, and now you can expect no better from your opponents.

Of course, we've listened to the screeching about racism, or various other stupid things because admitting that Republicans dislike Obama for political reasons would mean having to admit that all that vitriol spewed by liberals while Bush was in office was also for political reasons. No more, no less. That's all it's ever been and ever will be about.

If this sort of thing bothers you, and it should, then liberals can start by cleaning themselves up because... You're the ones that brought us down here.

You seemed to have forgotten the Clinton Administration, where redneck sniping was made legal. You *really* think it all started with Bush Jr? I would ask you the color of the sky in your world, but I'm sure my human eyes couldn't render those colors.

\people called Reagan all kinds of names, that was true\\but no one sent squadrons of lawyers to Little Rock to find dirt until Slick Willie came along\\\then it was open farking season

RyogaM:MyRandomName: RyogaM: MyRandomName: Asa Phelps: So which foreign policy are they referring to?

Drone strikes probably. Judge, Jury, Executor.

It was fun watching the Republican debate on foreign relations after reading all the Fark threads on the death of al Awalki, in which Fark independents tried to make the al Alwaki assassination into Obama's "New Unconstitutional Power Grab!" Both Romney and Gingrich fully supported the strike, you see, guaranteeing that Obama's use of drone strikes will never be mentioned again by the campaign. Must be tough, being a Fark independent, seeing all your outrage expended on actions that will have no affect on the presidency.

I stated nothing about the reactions of conservatives of the policies of Romney. But I can link you to many groups who were loud about drone strikes prior to O taking office. I'm personally against targeted strikes outside of actual war, and I'll remain consistent on that no matter who the president is. Nice strawman argument you've made up for yourself, however.

Where have all the anti-war protestors gone anyways?

I was not calling you a Fark independent, although rereading my post, I can see where you might think I was saying you were. I was speaking in generalities. Clearly, given your position, you are a true independent and won't be voting for Romney because he has pledged to continue drone strikes. 1 I commend you for your consistency. It is the Fark independents who tried to make an issue of the strikes prior to Romney making his support known that I found most amusing and was trying to share my amusement.

As far as the anti-war protesters, I cannot speak for them. I supported the war in Afghanistan when it began and until Bush farked it up, and supported the war in Iraq until it became clear that there were no WMDs and the Bush administration farked it up. I assume they are happy that the war in Iraq is over and most were never strongly against Afghanistan anyway, AFAICT.

1) I am not a single policy voter. Sorry. I am simply against drone strikes as they are currently used, especially on only suspects and not known terrorists. It's bad policy.

Again, not every anti-war protestor was simply against Iraq. But there has been a substantial decrease. It's not necessarily from just O being in office, it could be simply a dying over time, but there is a lot less protests these days than there were. I used to see them weekly up until about 3 years ago. I truly believe that the fact they were used to oppose GOP politics were a major player in the furor they had. Their numbers have been numbed now that one of "their guys" is in office. Sad but true.

If an enemy sniper is shooting from a building with 200 innocent civilians in it, that building is a valid military target and can be blown-up. That is what war is and if that makes you uncomfortable, don't start any wars to begin with.